Cross-System (Panasonic Leica, Fuji, Canon, Nikon) 85mm Equivalent Lens Performance Comparison

[Amin]

Update: The links to raw files in this comparison are no longer functional. If you want to download all the raw files to do your own analysis, here they are: 85mm shootout RAW files.zip

The four lenses compared here are the Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 (Nocticron) on Olympus E-M1, Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 on Canon 6D, Nikon 85mm f/1.8G on Nikon D610, and Fuji 56mm f/1.2 on Fuji X-E2.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

P4130001 by Amin Sabet, on Flickr

In this post I'll be showing how each lens performs wide open. I like to feel confident that I can use a lens wide open, and the purpose of this thread is to look at how these lenses deliver at that setting. For those wanting to see how these lenses compare at matched depth of field, see post #16 of this thread. For general comments on use, see post #18.

JPEGs were converted from RAW in Lightroom 5.4 with a quick (not always successful) attempt to match overall brightness and white balance during processing. Sharpening and noise reduction settings were left at defaults. I cropped the Olympus E-M1 JPEGs to 3:2 aspect ratio to facilitate comparison.

I recommend comparing JPEGs by right clicking each one and choosing "Open link in new tab" in your tabbed browser of choice so that you can compare one JPEG to the next by switching tabs.

Scene 1 JPEGs:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/P4120001.jpg
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/DSCF2018.jpg
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/IMG_0028.jpg
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/DSC_0028.jpg

Scene 1 RAW files:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/P4120001.orf
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/DSCF2018.raf
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/IMG_0028.cr2
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/DSC_0028.nef

The first thing I noticed from Scene 1 is how the Nocticron wide open renders a significantly less blurred background than the other three lenses. Having done the subsequent comparisons of the Nocticron at f/1.2 to the Canon and Nikon lenses at f/2.5, I can tell you that even at those respective settings, the full frame lenses produce a background with more apparent blur. In other words, relative to the other lenses, the Nocticron produces less background blur than one would predict for a 42.5mm f/1.2 lens on a Micro 4/3 camera.

On the other hand, Scene 1 also demonstrates that the Nocticron renders the smoothest bokeh of the four lenses wide open. Unlike the Nocticron, the other three lenses demonstrate nisen bokeh in this scene. This isn't the first example of a lens that renders particularly smooth bokeh showing less apparent background blur than one might expect. See for example Neil van Niekirk's excellent examples of how the Zeiss lens on the Sony RX1 produces less apparent background blur than the Nikon 35/1.4G when both lenses are used at 35mm and f/2.

Other things I noticed from Scene 1 are that the Nikon lens has impressive corner sharpness even wide open, that the Fuji is relatively free of the purple fringing shown by the other three lenses, and that the two full frame lenses show the most green bokeh fringing (one component of axial CA).


Scene 2 JPEGs:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/P4120004.jpg
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/DSCF2022.jpg
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/IMG_0031.jpg
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/DSC_0031.jpg

Scene 2 RAW files:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/P4120004.orf
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/DSCF2022.raf
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/IMG_0031.cr2
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/DSC_0031.nef

In Scene 2, I tried to focus near the front edge of the roof (between the first row of shingles and the second), but the Fuji focused further back. In general, the Fuji X-E2 was the hardest of the four cameras to focus on intended small targets, whereas the Olympus was the easiest. To what extent the lenses contributed to these differences, I cannot say.

In this scene, both the Nocticron and the Nikon clearly outresolved the sensor in the center of the frame where color aliasing is readily apparent. Meanwhile the Canon and especially the Nikon suffer from a lot of purple fringing and green-fringed bokeh. Again it seems to me that the Nocticron produces the smoothest bokeh with this very challenging background.


Scene 3 JPEGs:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/P4120005.jpg
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/DSCF2023.jpg
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/IMG_0032.jpg
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/DSC_0032.jpg

Scene 3 RAW files:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/P4120005.orf
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/DSCF2023.raf
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/IMG_0032.cr2
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/DSC_0032.nef

The subject of Scene 3 reminds me that I should mention that many of these images are overexposed with irrecoverable highlights owing to the use of fast primes wide open on a bright day without neutral density filters. The Fuji took the hardest hit as it has neither the 1/8000s setting of the Olympus nor the native ISO 100 of the Canon and Nikon.


Scene 4 JPEGs:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/P4120009.jpg
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/DSCF2029.jpg
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/IMG_0036.jpg
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/DSC_0036.jpg

Scene 4 RAW files:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/P4120009.orf
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/DSCF2029.raf
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/IMG_0036.cr2
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/DSC_0036.nef

Scene 4 comments: Canon front focused a bit here. I didn't do such a hot job matching white balance and brightness here during RAW conversion. The Fuji was the only lens to show flare under these conditions. All four lenses displayed some fairly ugly axial CA.


Scene 5 JPEGs:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/P4120011.jpg
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/DSCF2031.jpg
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/IMG_0038.jpg
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/DSC_0038.jpg

Scene 5 RAW files:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/P4120011.orf
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/DSCF2031.raf
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/IMG_0038.cr2
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/DSC_0038.nef


Scene 6 JPEGs:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/P4120012.jpg
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/DSCF2032.jpg
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/IMG_0039.jpg
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/DSC_0039.jpg

Scene 6 RAW files:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/P4120012.orf
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/DSCF2032.raf
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/IMG_0039.cr2
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/DSC_0039.nef

Scene 6 comments: The Nikon is just an impressively sharp lens wide open, isn't it? Certainly has been showing up the Canon if you've been seeing what I've been seeing in these comparisons overall.


Scene 7 JPEGs:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/P4120013.jpg
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/DSCF2033.jpg
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/IMG_0040.jpg
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG/DSC_0040.jpg

Scene 7 RAW files:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/P4120013.orf
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/DSCF2033.raf
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/IMG_0040.cr2
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW/DSC_0040.nef


I hope some members / readers find these samples to be useful! Please share your comments and questions below.*


*Except for discussion of the Nocticron price / value proposition. Those comments go here: Nocticron price

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

P4130002 by Amin Sabet, on Flickr

 

[duke]

Thanks for doing this Amin, should really help a bunch of people out. I think if the 45f1.8 was tossed in there people would really have to think if the 1.2 is really worth the price because to me, what this test shows is that
a. the lens is very sharp wide open
b. bokeh still isn't on the level of a fullframe system and IMO only slightly better than the 1.8 Oly

I think that the lens is built beautifully and obviously has great image quality, but how much better is it than the oly 45? IMO, not enough, but that's okay since it is a specialty lens. The Canon 85f1.8 that you were using is performing well, is the 85f1.2 really worth another $1500? It's all a give and take and I know it's been said numerous times before, but the kit lens gets you 80% there, the 45f1.8 will get you 95% there (IMO), how much are you willing to pay for perfection?

 

[tosvus]

duke, Amin specifically asked that another thread is used to talk about price/value proposition. I second your idea of 45 1.8 for purely quality comparison, but we should all respect Amin's point about this thread NOT turning into yet another price/value discussion!

Thanks for doing this Amin, should really help a bunch of people out. I think if the 45f1.8 was tossed in there people would really have to think if the 1.2 is really worth the price because to me, what this test shows is that
a. the lens is very sharp wide open
b. bokeh still isn't on the level of a fullframe system and IMO only slightly better than the 1.8 Oly

I think that the lens is built beautifully and obviously has great image quality, but how much better is it than the oly 45? IMO, not enough, but that's okay since it is a specialty lens. The Canon 85f1.8 that you were using is performing well, is the 85f1.2 really worth another $1500? It's all a give and take and I know it's been said numerous times before, but the kit lens gets you 80% there, the 45f1.8 will get you 95% there (IMO), how much are you willing to pay for perfection?

 

[Livnius]

To my eye the Nocticron and the Fuji are miles ahead of the Nikon and Canon...to be honest, I wouldn't consider many of the Nikon shots useable at all and clearly require stopping down to get adequate sharpness and contrast thus negating any shallow DOF advantage that they have over the Nocticron.

I think to say that the bokeh of the Nocticron "isn't up to the level of FF" is not quite an accurate statement....sure, you'll better obliterate the background with the Nikon here for example but how much does that extra 'shallowness' really count for when the image, even in the dead centre of the frame, clearly lacks the punchy contrast and sharpness of the Noctircron....and not to mention that in most of these examples the Nocticron is rendering smoother, less busy out of focus areas as well.

I think we need to frame this debate carefully...we aren't discussing which lens has the greater ability to produce the thinnest DOF possible, this discussion is which lens is able to produce the best, most useable images at largest possible aperture......looking at it that way, I'd say that quite contrary to what Duke said...it is the FF lens that isn't quite up to the level of the Fuji and Nocticron.

 

[duke]

Sorry about the price thing, guess I didn't see that. I guess I have lower standards Joe The WB on the nikon shots seems off to me, but I would totally use any of those shots and don't think they would need much done to them. I also disagree with the statement that the Nocticron bokeh is better in some way. Not trying to bash the lens in any way, like I said, I think the lens is great for the system, it's sharp and constructed better than any other m43 lens IMO. However, if the lens is f1.2 that says to me that they are marketing this at the folks who are looking for the shallowest DOF possible, and it just doesn't deliver. Again, it's a good lens, possibly even great, but it falls short on the most noticeable factor, the amount of bokeh. Sure as photographers we can analyze tiny details, but what does 98% of the population care if at 200% the bokeh is a little less pure or however you want to define it. What people notice immediately is the isolation, what f1.2 implies is isolation, what the lens delivers, is good quality, but not out of this world isolation, which is to be expected vs FF glass, but still dissapointing.

Also, once the subject is closer to the camera most differences between bokeh basically disappear IMO, and in those shots I would agree that the PL42.5 is the winner. I just think that the shallow DOF is what most people will prefer and when the pl42.5 is closer to infinity it just doesn't deliver the same shallowness as the other systems.

Again, I think it is a good lens, bought one of the $1300 ones from unique and used it a bit before deciding that I just couldn't justify it. There are certainly people who can and for them kudos, but I think the majority (overwhelmingly) will be perfectly fine with the 1.8.

 

[robbie36]

Sorry about the price thing, guess I didn't see that. I guess I have lower standards Joe The WB on the nikon shots seems off to me, but I would totally use any of those shots and don't think they would need much done to them. I also disagree with the statement that the Nocticron bokeh is better in some way. Not trying to bash the lens in any way, like I said, I think the lens is great for the system, it's sharp and constructed better than any other m43 lens IMO. However, if the lens is f1.2 that says to me that they are marketing this at the folks who are looking for the shallowest DOF possible, and it just doesn't deliver. Again, it's a good lens, possibly even great, but it falls short on the most noticeable factor, the amount of bokeh. Sure as photographers we can analyze tiny details, but what does 98% of the population care if at 200% the bokeh is a little less pure or however you want to define it. What people notice immediately is the isolation, what f1.2 implies is isolation, what the lens delivers, is good quality, but not out of this world isolation, which is to be expected vs FF glass, but still dissapointing.

Also, once the subject is closer to the camera most differences between bokeh basically disappear IMO, and in those shots I would agree that the PL42.5 is the winner. I just think that the shallow DOF is what most people will prefer and when the pl42.5 is closer to infinity it just doesn't deliver the same shallowness as the other systems.

Again, I think it is a good lens, bought one of the $1300 ones from unique and used it a bit before deciding that I just couldn't justify it. There are certainly people who can and for them kudos, but I think the majority (overwhelmingly) will be perfectly fine with the 1.8.

I am not sure that I actually agree with your argument at all. Anyone who buys a Nocticron knows full well that it falls short in terms of the 'amount' of bokeh against 1.2 on APS-C or 1.8 on FF. It is a simple statement of physics. Really if you think it is 'disappointing' that the Nocticron doesnt produce as shallow DOF as the other lenses then you have simply set your expectations wrong.

 

[zlatko-photo]

I am not sure that I actually agree with your argument at all. Anyone who buys a Nocticron knows full well that it falls short in terms of the 'amount' of bokeh against 1.2 on APS-C or 1.8 on FF. It is a simple statement of physics. Really if you think it is 'disappointing' that the Nocticron doesnt produce as shallow DOF as the other lenses then you have simply set your expectations wrong.

This is true. If one wants the shallow DOF of a full-frame 85, then one has to use a full-frame 85. There's no way of getting around that. Physics requires it. But this is the perpetual comparison of one format vs. another format. They are in fact different. Fortunately each format has its usefulness and its appeal.

 

[BobbyTan]

Physics and test reviews aside, I cannot consistently get good sharp images with the Canon 85/1.2L II on my 5D II. But I can consistently get sharp images wide open with my Nocticron, with amazing bokeh/OOF rendering, like these sample images. So, between the 5D II + 85/1.2L II and the E-M1 + Nocticron … I would take the E-M1 + Nocticron any day. In my books, the Nocticron beats both the Canon 85/1.2L II and 85/1.8 lenses - hands down. I am speaking from experience, having used the 5D II + 85/1.2L II for many years. The Nocticron is worth every penny … to me.

 

[duke]

Physics and test reviews aside, I cannot consistently get good sharp images with the Canon 85/1.2L II on my 5D II. But I can consistently get sharp images wide open with my Nocticron, with amazing bokeh/OOF rendering, like these sample images. So, between the 5D II + 85/1.2L II and the E-M1 + Nocticron … I would take the E-M1 + Nocticron any day. In my books, the Nocticron beats both the Canon 85/1.2L II and 85/1.8 lenses - hands down. I am speaking from experience, having used the 5D II + 85/1.2L II for many years. The Nocticron is worth every penny … to me.

Agree with this wholeheartedly and that's one of the main reasons I keep coming back to m43, the accuracy. Sure some systems might be slightly faster, but none are nearly as accurate IMO.

Sorry if it seems I'm ranting, it's late, been drinking

I like the lens, I think it's great for our system, It's obviously superior at 1.2 to the FF lenses at 1.8, I guess I just don't understand the main point of the comparison, especially if no one wants to talk about DOF or cost vs performance (the main factors to think about when considering the lens IMO)...

 

[GFFPhoto]

Great shots BobbyTan!

 

[Jonathan F/2]

The Nocticron looks good. If I could allot the budget for one, I'd buy it.

 

[pdk42]

A bit iff topic, but that flower and bee shot is just breathtaking!! WOW.

Also, I must agree about the problem of focus accuracy on the 5dii - it's just rubbish. Give me an E -M5 or such like any day.

 

[Sahib7]

The comparisons are great!
This could be the beginning of a new series: "Format Comparisons"!
I would also be interested in normal zoom comparisons (e.g. Olympus 12-40 f2.8 vs. Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 vs. Nikon 24-70 f2.8 vs. Canon 24-70 f2.8).
This would really give a great idea of trade-offs between systems (size/weight, image quality, DOF, bokeh, price, etc.).


@Amin:
Do you still have the CV Nokton to compare against the PL Nocticron? I'm especially interested in bokeh differences as it is already a well known fact that the PL is sharper than the CV, but the CV has lots of character

 

[val]

IMO the Nikon looks the best with rendering and separation except for the CA with the Fuji and PL in 2nd since the 56mm has more pop and the PL is sharper.

 

[BobbyTan]

Great shots BobbyTan!

Thank you! Clearly there are many people who see the value of an ultra-fast lens. It's like the old debate on the Canon 85/1.2 vs 85/1.8. In spite of the naysayers the 85/1.2L sold well and the Mark II version continues to sell well albeit not in the same numbers obviously, as this is a specialty lens. I never did like the 85/1.8 lens that I had a long time ago, before switching to the 85L and then to the 85L II. Well, the Nocticron IMO is better than all the 3 Canon lenses. The 85L/85L II are both excellent when it comes to isolating the background. Better than the Nocticron. My problem was achieving consistent focus/sharpness wide open, partly because the DOF was just way too shallow, and partly because of front/back focussing problems with the 5D Mk II. I understand this is less of a problem with the 5D Mk III because of the better AF system but the front/back focussing problem is still there. It's just the nature of the DSLR beast. MFT does not have these problems. And besides, the Nocticron is sharp in the corners wide open, and controls distortion and CA significantly better than the Canon. Heck, if I am still shooting DSLR I would be seriously tempted to get the E-M1 and a couple of lenses … namely the Nocticron for portrait work and the 300/4 for birding and wildlife. Lenses like these are the reasons why I have not been tempted to switch to the Sony A7r.

 

[Amin]

In this next set of scenes, I tried to match the calculated DOF between systems. For example, when I shot the Nocticron at f/1.2, I set the Fuji to f/1.4 and the Canon/Nikon to f/2.5. When I shot the Nocticron to f/4, I shot the Fuji at f/5 and the Canon/Nikon at f/8. My calculations were done on the fly and without a calculator, so they weren't all perfect for the Fuji setting, but they were close.

Scene 8 JPEGs:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/P4120002.jpg
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/DSCF2019.jpg
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/IMG_0029.jpg
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/DSC_0029.jpg

Scene 8 RAW files:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/P4120002.orf
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/DSCF2019.raf
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/IMG_0029.cr2
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/DSC_0029.nef

Scene 8 comments: At the 100% view, I don't like the way Lightroom is rendering the Fuji RAW file. Very odd looking.


Scene 9 JPEGs:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/P4120003.jpg
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/DSCF2020.jpg
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/IMG_0030.jpg
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/DSC_0030.jpg

Scene 9 RAW files:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/P4120003.orf
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/DSCF2020.raf
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/IMG_0030.cr2
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/DSC_0030.nef

Scene 9 comments: I was attempting to focus on the car door handle using center point focus for all cameras but the Canon seems to have frontfocused on what should have been an easy target. The Fuji focus may be a touch off here as well. The Nocticron was the only lens to always focus as intended in all of my comparisons. Again, tough to say how much credit goes to camera vs lens.


Scene 10 JPEGs:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/P4120006.jpg
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/DSCF2024.jpg
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/IMG_0033.jpg
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/DSC_0033.jpg

Scene 10 RAW files:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/P4120006.orf
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/DSCF2024.raf
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/IMG_0033.cr2
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/DSC_0033.nef

Scene 10 comments: Looks like the Nikon had some sort of camera movement. It was on a sturdy tripod with self timer but no mirror lockup, so the vibration could have been from the shutter or the mirror movement. I can't rule out a technical issue (frontfocus or camera vibration) with the Canon shot here, as it really should be doing a better job keeping up with the Nocticron when stopped well down like this.


Scene 11 JPEGs:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/P4120007.jpg
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/DSCF2025.jpg
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/IMG_0034.jpg
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/DSC_0034.jpg

Scene 11 RAW files:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/P4120007.orf
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/DSCF2025.raf
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/IMG_0034.cr2
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/DSC_0034.nef

Scene 11 comments: With the Nocticron at f/1.2 and the full frame lenses at f/2.5, one would expect the same amount of background blur, but the Nocticron background is less blurred. This doesn't mean that the Nocticron is slower than f/1.2 or that the full frame lenses are faster than designated. It's a function of how they render blur.


Scene 12 JPEGs:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/P4120008.jpg
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/DSCF2027.jpg
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/IMG_0035.jpg
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/DSC_0035.jpg

Scene 12 RAW files:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/P4120008.orf
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/DSCF2027.raf
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/IMG_0035.cr2
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/DSC_0035.nef


Scene 13 JPEGs:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/P4120010.jpg
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/DSCF2030.jpg
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/IMG_0037.jpg
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/JPEG-matched/DSC_0037.jpg

Scene 13 RAW files:
Panasonic-Leica: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/P4120010.orf
Fuji: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/DSCF2030.raf
Canon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/IMG_0037.cr2
Nikon: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mu43rawfiles/shorttele/RAW-matched/DSC_0037.nef

Scene 13 comments: I accidentally focused the Fuji on the wrong part of the bark here.

 

[zlatko-photo]

My problem was achieving consistent focus/sharpness wide open, partly because the DOF was just way too shallow, and partly because of front/back focussing problems with the 5D Mk II. I understand this is less of a problem with the 5D Mk III because of the better AF system but the front/back focussing problem is still there. It's just the nature of the DSLR beast.

Accurate AF at very wide apertures (1.2, 1.4) is a weakness of DSLRs. It has required some overshooting to assure focus. However, Canon improved their AF system in the 5D3 and 1DX so it's less of a problem with these newer cameras. I've noticed considerably improved accuracy with the 5D3 — still not perfect, but the hit rate is definitely better. (It depends on the lens too; an older design like the Canon 50/1.4 is still not as accurate as a newer one.) Even so, the Nocticron has great appeal for me by virtue of being much smaller & lighter than a full-frame 85/1.2. (Carrying heavy gear all day is not fun!) If the AF at wide apertures is more accurate, that is a big bonus. It gives more confidence when shooting and lessens the need for overshooting. BTW, the bee shot is fabulous! :smile:

 

[Amin]

Some general comments on using these cameras and lenses:
-There is something nice about the big meaty DSLR grips. The Canon 6D in particular fits my hand very well.
-To me the Pana Leica lens has the nicest look and finish of the bunch.
-All of these camera-lens combos autofocus very quickly. The Fuji is maybe a hair slower than the others.
-The Pana Leica was the only one that focused on the intended target virtually 100% of the time.
-The full frame DSLRs have poor autofocus frame coverage using the normal PDAF autofocus points, which cluster in the central part of the frame only.
-The DSLRs offer no face detection with PDAF, and the Fuji face detect implementation is noticeably worse than the Olympus one (the Olympus can be configured to focus on the near eye and does so with remarkable accuracy).
-Only the Olympus-Panasonic combo offers image stabilization. Combined with the faster speed of the Pana Leica lens relative to the full frame lenses, I have to use a 4+-stop higher ISO with the full frame cameras than the MFT camera when shooting static subjects in lower light.
-The Nocticron minimum focus distance of 1.6ft lets you get relatively close relative to the Fuji (2.3ft), Canon (2.8ft), and Nikon (2.6ft).

Overall I enjoy using the Olympus-Pana Leica combo most of all, and I think it gives me the most pleasing results as well.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

My two girls by Amin Sabet, on Flickr

 

[htc]

Also, I must agree about the problem of focus accuracy on the 5dii - it's just rubbish.

+1 +1 +1

 

[BobbyTan]

Accurate AF at very wide apertures (1.2, 1.4) is a weakness of DSLRs. It has required some overshooting to assure focus. However, Canon improved their AF system in the 5D3 and 1DX so it's less of a problem with these newer cameras. I've noticed considerably improved accuracy with the 5D3 — still not perfect, but the hit rate is definitely better. (It depends on the lens too; an older design like the Canon 50/1.4 is still not as accurate as a newer one.) Even so, the Nocticron has great appeal for me by virtue of being much smaller & lighter than a full-frame 85/1.2. (Carrying heavy gear all day is not fun!) If the AF at wide apertures is more accurate, that is a big bonus. It gives more confidence when shooting and lessens the need for overshooting. BTW, the bee shot is fabulous! :smile:

Thank you … and that's exactly my point. I rarely shot at f1.2 with the Canon for that reason. Also, because of the size and weight, my 85L II stayed home most of time - unless I am doing a specific portrait shoot and know that I will need that lens. I will never go on any photo shoot without the Nocticron because it's also great for street shooting, indoor and night photography, landscape, close-up work, etc.